So the valuable employees pay a percentage of their paycheck as union fees, so that the union can negotiate the salary of the not so valuable employees? That of course leaves less money for the high value employees. If the company was a factory, or something similar where the top employees are similar to the average employee, then maybe unions could work. But in the case of programmers, there is a big difference between top employees and average ones. That means that not so many top employees wound want to join unions, making employers even less likely to employ union workers.
Our "collective contracts" offer a lot more benefits than just salary, though. For example, they limit how often your employer can require you to be "on call" (if that is part of your role), how much overtime the employer can ask for, how much they need to pay for it, etc.
The contract really benefits everyone, regardless of salary level.
And you don't even need to be a union member. The contract is binding for every employer in Austria, but union membership is voluntary. (Unions offer additional benefits to members, eg. legal assistance)
To be honest, I’m not such a stickler for rules that I’d care about how often I can be on call, but I’ve basically been on call 24/7 before, so it’s quite possible I’ve become inured to it, and getting extra money for it is always nice.
As far as overtime goes, in Japan you are basically pre-paid for 35 hours of overtime a month regardless of whether you actually work it, so I’ll probably never get any extra money for it unless things get really crazy.
So the overtime and "on call" is not regulated on the country level?
In Poland it is, we have limits of how much overtime one can have, how much money you get when working overtime (e.g. during the week it is +50% more per hour, during the weekend it is +100% more).
One has to have at least I think 11 hours of free time from work ("on call" + usual office time hours) per 24hrs during the week and it is 36 hrs during the weekend.
Some things are regulated in the law (Angestelltengesetz), some parts are regulated in "collective contracts" (Kollektivvertrag), some parts are in a company wide contracts (Betriebsvereinbarung), and then there is your individual contract.
Summary: At most 10 times on call per month, no more than 168 hours per month, no more than 30 days in 3 months, payment of 4,33€ per hour for being on call, as soon as you start doing something it counts as regular working time.
Probably a large percentage, but they're not programmers. I think you'll find far greater support from programmers for efforts (including unionization) that would improve the plight of non-programmers, particularly contingent workers, at top companies.
A union is a bureaucratic process for that problem A much simpler solution is to donate directly to those coworkers. Rather than paying union fees and getting the company to direct more of your salary to lower paid employees, you can just give them how much you want to.
You appear to have no desire to build a more equitable work experience for everyone. Presumably you also don't mind that your elitism assumes a lot of upside benefit for a few and a lot of downside consequences for most.
I've never been the alpha chimp, but I've also never been the bottom of the heap. It strikes me that your lack of empathy strongly implies you think you not only would do better, but that you deserve to.
Let me put it to you that you're wrong: you would actually do better long term fighting to get better pay across the board and incentives for high achievers actually do better long term (as in vesting) when everyone wins.
> You appear to have no desire to build a more equitable work experience for everyone.
Correct. I do not want to work at a place where no matter how much I invest in improving myself (learning a new coding technic in my free time rather than going to a movie) I will earn the same (or similar) to that of the cleaners.
> Presumably you also don't mind that your elitism assumes a lot of upside benefit for a few and a lot of downside consequences for most.
Me upgrading my TV to a 50' does not make your 20' TV worse.
> It strikes me that your lack of empathy strongly implies you think you not only would do better, but that you deserve to.
I have a lot of empathy. I give more than minimum wage in charitable donations.
> Let me put it to you that you're wrong: you would actually do better long term fighting to get better pay across the board and incentives for high achievers actually do better long term (as in vesting) when everyone wins.
It isn't adversarial, I am not going against Google. I can learn a new technique in web programming that would both make me more valuable to Google and make be more valuable to other companies.
This comment thread is a microcosm of every unionization discussion in which I've participated.
A: [Proposal for collective organization]
B: [Explains logical holes in proposal]
A: You're a bad person!
Every single discussion on this topic eventually devolves into people demanding that others support a system that's not in their interest on the basis of specious moral principles that happen to benefit the person making the moralistic argument, for example, "you lack empathy" or "you hate democracy". The truth is, nobody is required to support a system that's not in his interest, and if organizers can't create a system that makes everyone better off, they'll fail to achieve their goals. Shame is no substitute for incentive.
> This comment thread is a microcosm of every unionization discussion in which I've participated.
I agree with this part.
However, "but unions would try to level the playing field so I would not be able to maintain my (obviously well-deserved) elite status" is not a logical argument.
And "you appear not to want to make things more equitable" is not saying "you're a bad person"—and you saying it is says, I think, more about you than it does about ggm's post, which stated things in fairly value-neutral terms. Even his final remark was not a moral judgement of any kind, but rather an economic argument.
Of course nobody's required to support a system that doesn't benefit them. But (to take your position to its illogical extreme) if everybody fought tooth and nail to ensure that they got the very most possible without regard for what anyone else got, I don't think anyone would be very happy with the result.
So yes, this thread is very much a microcosm of every unionization discussion I've seen on the Internet.
A: [proposal for collective organization]
B: [objects that with a union, they wouldn't be able to use their Mad (Negotiating/Programming) Skillz to get hugely better compensation]
A: [attempts to argue that with a union, more people would be better off on average]
> However, "but unions would try to level the playing field so I would not be able to maintain my (obviously well-deserved) elite status" is not a logical argument.
You're framing this as some kind of 99th percentile elites vs. everyone else situation, when the real issue is that 65th percentile employees have different interests than 35th percentile employees. Who themselves have different interests than 2nd percentile employees.
And there is a difference between leveling the playing field and leveling the players.
Yes. I did do that. And I stand by it. Collectivism demands empathetic bonding between people at extremes of ability and contribution. The whole 'from each according to their ability' bit is inherent in the 'to each according to their needs' clause.
But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.
I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.
The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.
>Yes. I did do that. And I stand by it. Collectivism demands empathetic bonding between people at extremes of ability and contribution. The whole 'from each according to their ability' bit is inherent in the 'to each according to their needs' clause.
That doesn't mean those who oppose collectivism (particularly the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" style) don't have empathy. There are many here for example who support vigorous free market competition (both in goods and services and in labor) run by supply and demand but also advocate a basic income out of empathy to make sure everyone is ensured a minimum humane standard of living.
>But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.
There are plenty of companies that have a primarily tenure-based system of pay and promotion. At least in tech, those legacy incumbents tend to be far less successful and profitable than the merit-based companies disrupting them. I know which kind of company I'd rather work for.
>I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.
Systems for career advancement / promotions are never perfect, but rarely do they just hire and promote the smartest geniuses. Generally, being a team player is a very important part of career improvement / advancement.
>The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.
Most people are not above average. Meaning most employers will not have a choice but hiring below average employees, whether they're in a union or not. And most employees will benefit more from raising the floor than they risk getting disadvantaged by lowering the ceiling.
And yes, it probably does depress salaries for the people on the top of the curve. But they are also often not the highest performers either, but the people best at marketing themselves. Sometimes the two intersect, but often it does not.
The reality is that what you're suggesting in terms of employers avoiding union employees rarely is an issue in countries with high proportions of unionized employees.
And yes, it probably does depress salaries for the people on the top of the curve. But they are also often not the highest performers either, but the people best at marketing themselves. Sometimes the two intersect, but often it does not.
I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I’m nowhere near the west coast, but I can definitely tell you that the stagnation of my salary during the first decade of my career and the rapid rise during the second decade is much more attributable to the increase in my emotional intelligence, knowing how to play the game, and knowing how to get to know the right people and networking.
And most people believe they’re a top performer, and resist helping the “freeloaders,” even though most of them would be helping themselves. Thus the cult of individualism and meritocracy keeps workers in their place.
> So the valuable employees pay a percentage of their paycheck as union fees, so that the union can negotiate the salary of the not so valuable employees?
No, that isn't really how it works. Unions are basically insurance. Some of that insurance is minimum wage, but others are vacation, promotions, non-disclosures, arbitration, work environment etc.
Minimum wage in white collar unions usually isn't very high. It is usually just protection against the company dumping salaries below the level of reasonable living conditions.
> That means that not so many top employees wound want to join unions, making employers even less likely to employ union workers.
Talented employees have the most to lose by being unfairly treated. To be underpaid, to have your career interrupted, to not be able to take other opportunities etc. Again it is insurance.
Talented employees have the least to lose. They can simply switch to a higher paying job. If the minimum wage that the union negotiates is lower than what I can get, then the minimum wage is useless for me.
No they can't. Talented people have years invested in products, projects and relationships at a company. That is why you see "after 10 years at x, head of y is now leaving for z". It is average employees that can switch without consequence since they don't have a position.
Say you are a talented employee at company X. You have invested time and effort in a project for the last three years and done good work. Now you get into a dispute with a manager over the future of the project. They start playing office politics and eventually get your project defunded, blocks your promotion and requires you to sign a non-compete to get your bonus.
While you can just quit and join company Y the first thing they will ask is what you did the last three years, what your project was and which position you attained. Chances are you are back in a similar position, having to reinvest that time and effort. Thing like this can really mess up your career.
If you are just working on a average project, not really expecting a promotion or in other ways are average, you don't have as much to lose. Sure, if you don't get treated right at company X, you go join company Y in a similar position. On the other hand since you don't expect a trajectory attaining things like good pension, vacation and overtime early matters a lot.
You are right, it would have been correct for my comment to refer to mid level people. But regardless, creating minimum wage would not help you unless you are the type of person who would earn below "union minimum wage" without the union. Otherwise, you would be diverting part of your paycheck to low level employees and to union fees.
